International Transparent Treaties Bill

I move, That the International Transparent Treaties Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. This bill was written in response to the fear, unease, and confusion of our times, in response to New Zealand’s worry and anger with an out-of-touch and arrogant Government. I speak, of course, about the 6 years of secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and a signing that deliberately excluded the majority of New Zealanders and, in fact, excluded those whom we call their representatives.

For the spin acolytes across the side of the House there, before they start dribbling the words “anti-trade” and “build a wall”, I remind the National backbenchers that one of New Zealand First’s founding principles is to grow our country’s exports through trade and favourable fiscal and monetary settings that actually work for Kiwi business. The TPP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 (TPP11) will not do that for our country. You will be aware that trade, in the sum of our economy, has actually gone backwards under this National Government. It was a bad deal when the United States was involved. It will be a bad deal without the United States.

The Government needs to let it go and work on real free-trade agreements so our exporters have open access and so they benefit from meaningful tariff reductions. We have recently seen the death of neo-liberalism and globalism—at least, I hope so, in its current form. Discussions over the decades have suggested that an unfettered globalist agenda without thought for the people they presume to represent would bring about its own demise. Yes, expanded global trade under an interventionist US Government in a post-war era has grown the world economy, and many of us have seen the benefit of that. But globalism, I put it to this House, has become the calling card of the global elite. Big business has hijacked trade, and now New Zealanders know it. As the Brexit vote highlighted, globalism in its current form must be considered dead, and yet most commentators and most economists have been blinded by the backlash.

In the late 1990s, it became clear to observers that deeper economic integration required harmonisation of laws and regulations across countries. Differences in rules on employment conditions, or product safety requirements, or the environment, for example, are deemed to be barriers to trade in this modern world. Indeed, as New Zealand First has always said, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) was more about non-tariff barriers than it was about actually removing real tariff barriers for our exporters.

The consequences of these agreements often run counter to what the majority of the people actually want from their Government and for their country. Deeper integration, it was reckoned, will therefore either lead to an erosion of democracy—sound familiar—as national leaders disregard the will of the public, or cause the dissolution of the nation State, as authority moves to supranational bodies elected to create harmonised rules for everyone to follow. The example of that that we see in the world does not seem to be working particularly well either.

These trade-offs in these treaties create a trilemma. Societies cannot be globally integrated—

💬 Hon David Bennett: That’s a big word.

Sorry, I will repeat that for Mr Bennett—a trilemma. Societies cannot be globally integrated, completely sovereign, and democratic. They can opt for only two of the three. Many international corporates and the servants of big business wagered that the sovereignty of nation States would be the item societies chose to disregard. It is now clear that the people of the world—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Andrew Little’s Budget speech was better than this, mate.

—the people of New Zealand, Mr Bennett—cannot and will not forgo their sovereignty and their right to determine their own future, and that National Government sided with big business, and it did not side with the people of New Zealand. Tonight its members will not want to discuss a more open democracy in a more empowered House of Representatives. They will have us continue with their current undemocratic power base.

By way of example, Parliament was not informed about the contents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement when the executive signed it. Instead, we were told to trust them and were described as breathless children. New Zealanders were rightly insulted, and indeed infuriated. That was when tens of thousands of New Zealanders rose up in revolt. Kiwis protested up and down the country. They literally shut down Auckland in an incredible show of opposition to the signing of the TPPA.

International partnership agreements were at the forefront of our consciousness, and the Government did not want a bar of it. Our Parliament was officially informed only once the agreement had been signed, and even then we were not actually ratifying the treaty; we were ratifying supporting legislation. By goodness, were we shepherded in what that debate looked like in the House on those pieces of legislation. They were detailed and we were absolutely confined to the tedious law. We could not speak about what the enabling legislation meant for the rest of the country and what the trade deal meant for New Zealand.

The real difference between the current system and what my bill proposes is that Parliament will actually matter. The people of New Zealand want Parliament to matter. They want representatives to think about them and not just the international corporates. There are trade-offs in these agreements, and the National Government never looked beyond the infinitesimal benefits that were highly contested and highly debated—

💬 Todd Muller: Come on! Passion, not volume—passion.

—just not in this House, Mr Muller. In fact, the New Zealand people wanted their representatives to care about New Zealand.

Outside of the Westminster jurisdiction, in the developed world, it has, basically, moved on. Across the world, we see a more democratic process, with greater restriction placed on the executive to enter into international treaties. Sweden, France, Ireland, Denmark, and the Netherlands are just a few examples of where parliaments must give approval for signing up to treaties. We should look to them, with the modern world, and cast off this antiquated anathema. Even within the TPP11, the zombie that the Government is trying to resurrect, we are on the negative side of the ledger. Japan, Malaysia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei all require parliamentary approval for treaties.

New Zealand has a long tradition as an international player. It is a tradition we are proud of, but in this we have fallen behind the times. We will be seen as lacking in our democracy, and we will be tarnished for it. The system as it is absolutely fails when the executive signs New Zealand into treaties against the wishes of the New Zealand public. That is why parliamentary approval of treaties must be given before the executive signs us up. This Government has shown that public debate about, and the opposition to, international treaties does not matter to it one bit.

In our democracy, accountability matters. Not only did the TPPA take accountability away but so does the current outrageously outdated system that this Government so desperately clings to. This bill will allow New Zealanders to decide who is to be held accountable for the decisions made on their behalf. It will be clear, and it will be transparent when they go to the polling booths. Democracy and accountability must be at the core of good Government. Thank you.

I rise to speak against the International Transparent Treaties Bill. Mr Tabuteau—dear, oh dear, oh dear. My 9-year-old told me a joke and said: “What’s an example of wasted energy? Telling a hair-raising story to a bald man.” This is even worse when it comes to wasted energy. In fact, to be honest, it is hard to know where to start.

Let us start with, firstly, an observation—that I would look at this and see it as so off beam that it borders almost on the bizarre. Firstly, let us create the scenario that this bill talks to. A trade Minister, who has worked on behalf of this Government, of this Parliament, of this country, negotiating, in many cases, for many, many years, often between Governments, across Governments, on behalf of New Zealand’s interests and trade interests—they are in a tight negotiation where they have had many wins and some compromises, and they get to the final point of the handshake. Yet now here what we are suggesting is that that trade Minister, before he or she can put their signature to the paper that sums up the collective effort of so many people, on behalf of exporters in this country, would have to say: “No, hang on a minute. I’ve got to stop now and I’ve got to run back to the Parliament of New Zealand and run it past them before we can sign it.”

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Like half the developed world—more than half the developed world. That’s ridiculous.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Mr Tabuteau, you stand there and wave your flag and affiliation to anything with the Union Jack on it. You, understandably, underpin so much of New Zealand First’s constitution, as you have outlined. So all those other Westminster democracies, of which, in other contexts, you are so proud to say New Zealand First reflects the same traditions—when they have separations of powers, where you have the executive given the ability to go and negotiate on behalf of a Government, and then it brings back a negotiated text for the select committee to reflect on and report back to Parliament on, somehow you think that is a nonsense. Quite frankly, Mr Tabuteau, I think you have completely misplayed it here, in your suggested bill.

Can I just reflect for a moment on why we find ourselves reflecting on a bill so poorly constructed and really, I think, incredibly weak. It is based on a flawed perspective that somehow our treaty-making process is inherently covert, when the opposite is true—the complete opposite is true. We are extraordinarily transparent when the deal is secured. It seems to me that what New Zealand First wants to be is ringside at the negotiations and it wants its particular view of how trade deals should progress—or not progress, in the New Zealand First context. That is why it is putting this bill up in front of us here this evening.

It is so naive, in terms of the context around how trade deals are negotiated—this view that, somehow, you have got to have total visibility on how we are negotiating because anything other than that, Mr Tabuteau, is covert. I direct you to your general policy statement, which you did not even mention here in the conversation about this bill tonight: “Parliament or Select Committees do not have the right to examine and review the terms of international treaties before or during negotiation.” So your view, if I read this ill-considered bill that is in front of us tonight, is that you expect that you should be sitting there as the negotiations unfold and, worse than that, that there should be an open visibility from the New Zealand negotiators—up against all these other countries that have their own national interests that they are seeking to promote, protect, and enhance—that, somehow, our interests are best served by being completely open about what the New Zealand position is and being able to tell everyone here, back in New Zealand, as we negotiate through our position. It is naive, quite frankly, at a level that it is disturbing that we are even having to have this conversation this evening.

I think, in a very real sense, it is a window into the soul of New Zealand First, particularly in respect of how it views trade, how it views the world unfolding, and where it thinks New Zealand’s interests are best promoted. In fact, if you listen to its rhetoric, time and time again it is constantly suggesting that an integrated, harmonised global system is not the way of the future. Well, Mr Tabuteau, you go and talk to the exporters from Rotorua who go to your office and say: “I want the opportunity for non-tariff barriers to be removed to assist my kiwifruit, to assist my wood exporters.”

This is the whole purpose of this country: it is to sell value to the rest of the world; not to listen to your protectionist, “pull up the wall”, New Zealand First and New Zealand interests above all else. In my view, that is sounding somewhat analogous to some other administrations around the country that have pivoted to a more internal, more introspective view of the world that this party in particular does not believe serves the values of New Zealand families and exporters. Quite frankly, it is a disgrace that we should be having to have a conversation this evening on a bill so poorly thought-out as the one that we have here.

I use your words, Mr Tabuteau, that you graced us with this evening: trade has grown, you noted. Trade has grown on the back of the neo-liberal agenda that you somehow believe is now dead. Trade has grown, and we have all seen the benefits—precisely, Mr Tabuteau. So when you talk about the evils of harmonisation and the evils of a global economy that is increasingly integrated, you are doing a disservice to all those people in the communities that you seek to represent whose entire livelihoods and jobs and families’ aspirations reflect our ability to be able to trade effectively on the world stage.

If you look specifically at this bill, it holds a remarkable view around the current approach that we take in respect of dealing with international treaties. It seems to be completely blind to the extraordinarily powerful and critical role that Parliament and its select committees—in this case, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—play in reviewing every treaty of significance that is concluded by the executive. They get introduced here, in terms of the final agreed text; we take it out to the community, the entire country, to have an opportunity to reflect on it and to give us feedback as a select committee; we get official advice; we pore over the national interest analysis (NIA); we make our own select committee assessment on the value, based on the submitters’ perspectives, the officials’ advice, and reading the NIA ourselves; and then we bring our own report back to Parliament. How is that not transparent? How is that not providing an opportunity for the people of this country to give feedback?

It is an absolutely ridiculous construct to suggest, Mr Tabuteau, that, somehow, the executive, which has been given that power to be able to negotiate treaties on behalf of New Zealand, should somehow not be able to do that and have to give it back—at any time through the negotiation. I quote your key words back at you, Mr Tabuteau: at any time during the negotiation, back to the whole of Parliament. This process that is being considered in this bill is, as I say, extremely flawed.

When you look at the process that we have run—as has the United Kingdom, as has Canada, as has every Western Westminster democracy like our own—it is a process of negotiation. It is a process where, once that negotiation has been completed and concluded, Cabinet, assessing the national interest analysis, then agrees that it should be signed. Then that text is presented in this House and in similar Houses in similar Western Westminster democracies. It is then presented here for consideration, which includes a huge amount of public consultation. And then, finally, ratification.

What I think this bill does talk to is a rather distorted view of the way the world is unfolding, a view that does a disservice to this Parliament, in my view. It is a view that does a disservice to this country and to our expectation that we should always give a firm hand to the trade Minister to be able to negotiate the best deal on our behalf, and then for us, as Parliament, to be able to follow due process to assess it. I strongly oppose this bill.

I would just like to begin by reminding the member who resumed his seat, Todd Muller, that Government Ministers every day undertake complex negotiations across a range of activities that then require legislative endorsement by the House. I will give him an example, one that I know he will be very familiar with. Ministers across successive Governments negotiated with the dairy industry, for example, to create Fonterra. It then required ratification by the Parliament, through a legislative process. To say that Ministers could not undertake complex negotiations simply because they required ratification by the House through a legislative process afterwards is somewhat of a straw man to build up, only to then knock it down. That is simply not relevant in this particular case.

Globalisation is not a Government policy; it is happening whether we like it or not. That is the truth. That is the reality. But how Governments respond to globalisation matters a great deal, because globalisation does not belong to corporations; it belongs to people. Actually, what we are seeing around the world now—in popular democracy around the world—is a rebellion by voters who feel that the globalisation agenda has been taken away from them and given to others. We saw it in the Brexit decision, where voters in the UK rose up because they felt that they were being left behind and that their voices were not being heard. We saw it in the United States, where Donald Trump was elected off the back of a backlash—a backlash against elected elites, who, the voters felt, were no longer serving their interests.

The promise of democracy is an empowered and informed citizenry, and the level of secrecy that goes with some of these international negotiations does cut against that. I simply remind members who are opposed to the idea of more transparency around these negotiations that agreements that are entered into undemocratically can be exited from undemocratically. We are seeing that at the moment. Think about agreements on climate change. Think about other agreements that people who might not sign up to a trade agenda might sign up to. There should be transparency around those, and there should be scrutiny of those.

The solutions to many of the challenges that we face as a people, as a global people, are multilateral ones not unilateral ones. We cannot resort to the certainties of past solutions that are no longer relevant in the current world. We do have to be part of the multilateral globalisation debate, and we have to be part of the process. But we have to ensure that we engage with that on our terms and that we make sure we are being responsive to the needs of our people in the process. People are being left behind in the current processes around globalisation. Corporations are being put ahead of people. It is unsustainable, and, as a result, we are seeing a backlash from voters around the world. New Zealand is not immune from that. If we are not responsive to that, if we do not ensure that Parliament becomes more responsive to the needs of the voters, then we will face exactly the same backlash.

The New Zealand Parliament is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the process of governing in this country, where more and more decisions are being made by a handful of Ministers, away from the public eye, with very little scrutiny. I think we have to make Parliament more relevant to the process of governing. Globalisation and multilateral agreements are increasingly becoming more and more important in the way that we are going to solve the complex problems of the future.

So, yes, I believe that there should be more parliamentary scrutiny of those multilateral agreements. I do not think that that somehow means the world is going to end, and that we are not going to be able to go out and negotiate with the world in good faith. Of course we will be able to, but, ultimately, Parliament should be debating those things and Parliament, ultimately, should be ratifying them. That is what we would do if the Government entered into certain contractual arrangements. Think of the aged-care sector. The Government negotiated a very complex deal there with people working in the aged-care sector, and we are legislating to ratify that at the moment. That does not mean Government Ministers could not negotiate in good faith. They did, and Parliament is now debating it and will legislate to make it happen. We can do that with multilateral agreements too.

I do not necessarily agree with the exact design of this bill, but I absolutely agree with the basic principle that Parliament should be applying much greater scrutiny to the multilateral agreements that we are entering into. Parliament should be relevant in this process, not a handful of Ministers. We live in a democracy; we do not live in an elected dictatorship. If voters start to feel that they live in an elected dictatorship, that is when we will see some of the very unpredictable results that other countries are experiencing at the moment.

Paragraph 5.77 of the Cabinet Manual describes a treaty as “a written agreement between states or international organisations that is governed by international law.” The current steps to the international treaty process include submission to Cabinet with an NIA—national interest analysis—before presentation to the House. It is then referred to a select committee, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, referred back to the House plus or minus recommendations, and then ratified by the executive.

The first point is that the current treaty examination process was agreed in a bipartisan fashion several years ago—bipartisan agreement. Secondly, there are already existing opportunities for the House to approve a treaty, on the basis that most treaties require enabling legislation, which must progress through the standard legislative programme and get approval from the House. In fact, if we look at the recent treaties—maybe we will just go to the first one that is in the online system, the international treaty examination of the agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the United States on technology safeguards. If we look at this, we can see that the member Fletcher Tabuteau and his party had an impact and offered a view on the treaty through the enabling legislation. In fact, if we look at the member’s contribution on the first reading debate of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill and look at his last sentence in that first reading debate, he says the following: “I will acknowledge that this is an amazing opportunity for New Zealand, and I do look forward to the select committee process and further contributions on this legislation in the House.”—further contributions. The member had a say; his party had a say.

I think even more compelling is the fact that a member’s bill of exactly this type, the International Treaties Bill, was introduced in 2000 by Green MP Keith Locke. This was forwarded to the select committee and, in 2001, it was resoundingly turned down. If we pull that select committee report, who do we see on the committee? Ron Mark from New Zealand First. On that select committee, Ron Mark from New Zealand First turned that bill down—turned this policy down. In fact, if we look at what New Zealand First said in the second reading debate on that bill, which did not progress, they said the following, and I read from the document. “New Zealand First will not support the continuation of this bill. … I was interested in the submission made by the New Zealand Law Society on this bill. The Law Society indicated it does not support such a revolutionary approach as that set out in the bill. … The main reason that I oppose this bill is as much from the practicalities that are involved as from anything else.”

The last paragraph of the second reading debate speech from New Zealand First states this—remember, this is 2001—“The suggestion that more work should be given to this House, when this minority Labour Government cannot currently run the Order Paper, beggars imagination. New Zealand First cannot possibly support this legislation,”.

In conclusion, (1) the current treaty examination process was arrived at in bipartisan fashion, (2) the inevitable enabling legislation means the House gets to indirectly vote on treaties, and (3) New Zealand First made the correct decision and has not supported this in the past. I like this member and I commend him for the work he has done to get this bill to this point. I despair, though, for his party, which has left him hung out to dry. It knew that it had turned this down recently, and it did not let the member know. It let him proceed with this and hung him out to dry, and I am very sorry for that—very sorry for Mr Tabuteau, whom, as I say, I like, and I think has done good work. For this and any number of reasons, I cannot support this bill any further. Thank you.

The Green Party will certainly be supporting this bill, and we do so for reasons that are clearly beyond the comprehension and ability of National MP colleagues to even begin to comprehend. There is probably one person sitting across the aisle there who has an understanding of, and insight into, constitutional and international law and the role of Parliament in a constitutional democracy—one.

The current chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was so moved with personal emotion to launch a personal attack against our colleague Mr Fletcher Tabuteau, who is also a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, conveying misplaced scorn, bordering on anger, against a colleague. I will quote Mr Muller: “so naive” of Mr Tabuteau, “a disgrace that we should be having to have a conversation”, “does a disservice to this Parliament.”

The chairman, in being unable to control his emotions and his anger, did a disservice to this Parliament. He should be ashamed. He let our committee down. As it happened, he was not actually a member of the committee, as I recall, at the time. The previous chairman, Mark Mitchell, conveyed dignity and courtesy to all members of the committee at the time and to all submitters, about 3,000 of them, every one of them impassioned—3,000 written submissions and 255 oral submissions presented in person. The previous chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee conveyed the utmost courtesy to every single one of them. He did the committee proud.

The philosophy that is animating the current chair is an over-interpretation of “New Zealand Inc.” It conveys a philosophical skew on the one hand and a certain constitutional ignorance on the other. The fact is that the treaty examination by Parliament is simply an undertaking where, with a majority on the committee, it receives submissions and reports back to the House on the treaty, with no obligation for the House to actually even debate it. In this particular case, the House did not debate it. There was no vote taken. That is the extent of the treaty examination.

The ratification process proceeds independently of Parliament. It is not dependent on Parliament. The implementing legislation is the only role that the Parliament has, beyond that supine treaty examination. The select committee relies on the very Government department to report back with a national interest analysis, made on the basis of its own original judgment about the merits of commencing and proceeding with negotiations.

Whereas six of the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries require a parliamentary majority for ratification, in New Zealand the Government can proceed with supreme indifference to Parliament. There is a strong reason to have a requirement that the Government, in the form of the Minister, report to the Parliament before any signature of any international negotiation or any international treaty is finalised. We will be supporting the bill.

It is an interesting bill to talk about—interesting, but not, I suspect, in the sense that the sponsor of the bill would think—the International Transparent Treaties Bill. Well done on getting your bill drawn out of the biscuit tin, Mr Tabuteau. It is a great feeling to get a bill out and to get it into the House. It is fantastic.

I would say one thing, though. That was quite a Trump-esque speech. I would have to let you know, though, that the one thing aligning New Zealand First along the lines of the Brexit exit and the success of Donald Trump in the United States is that those were sorts of anti-establishment votes. The leader of New Zealand First is establishment. After 40 years in Parliament, he is establishment, so the parallels just end right there. But going back to the bill—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

—in the previous speaker’s contribution, Dr Kennedy Graham mentioned something about one person having a constitutional law background on this side of the House, I believe. Well, I have to say that I recall, during the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) debate, actually looking across the House and thinking: “Who on that side has an exporting and a trade background? I am not sure.” I could not count any. There may well be one member whom I have missed, but I could not count any. I would say, coming from that background, that to actually get out in the market and work in a foreign country and realise how much easier it is to have fair trade, you would then have a much better understanding—not you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of course; the sponsor of the bill would—of what free trade means, because, clearly, looking at the way this bill is drafted, the sponsor does not.

I know that it is well-intentioned, as I mentioned before, but it adds needless complexity, which would make the Rules Reduction Taskforce’s day, seeing something like this to eliminate off the books. I would also point out to the Labour speaker—I am not sure which one it was who spoke earlier. The young fellow—what is his name? Anyway—

💬 Hon Member: Chris Hipkins, I think.

Chris Hipkins, that is right. The TerraNova decision was, in fact, signed by the Government; then the legislation had to be passed by Parliament. So he quite misrepresented, whether it was intentional or not—I doubt that it would be intentional; it was just a lack of homework yet again. This is a serious debating chamber on a serious issue. We should do our homework.

The national interest analysis is a major plank in getting through all of these types of agreements that we sign up to. It then goes through the usual Westminster processes of coming to Parliament to be debated through a select committee—which was well explored by my colleague Mr Muller—and I think that is a very important process.

I remember going through and being subbed on to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in Christchurch to hear the evidence there, and it was worth the whole day to hear Sir Graeme Harrison from ANZCO talk about the world not owing us a living, how difficult it was to get out there in the market, and how much of a difference it would make to the meat industry to have a free-trade agreement, particularly with Japan, where a lot of beef goes. That is significantly impacted on, compared with our friends and colleagues in Australia, who have a much better trade deal with Japan than we do. The TPP would have enabled us to have the same basis to operate under. Hopefully, TPP11 will be successful, and I am sure it will be, although I am sure that that support is not going to come from, particularly, the sponsor of this bill.

I just want to finish by circling right back again and saying that, really, if the member was to walk in the shoes of someone who has done the trade and gone into the coalface of trade on the front line, he really would understand much better the importance of negotiators having the ability to get in and negotiate, make the decision, sign the agreement, and then come back to Parliament for its ratification, which is the process we have today. Therefore, sadly, I oppose this bill.

I feel a need to calm things down, because this debate has been very heated so far. So, in a relatively short contribution, can I just say that I think the Government’s position on this bill is a little confused, because it did bring some legislation to this House around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It had the numbers in the House to pass that, and so it had the majority to see that legislation through this House.

What this piece of legislation does—removing all the emotion and specificity around a trade deal or a climate change treaty that we may be part of—is to make it standard practice that if a Government of the day was to sign up to something like a trade deal or a climate change treaty, it would come to this House, it would be debated in this House, the merits or negatives about the treaty or the deal would be taken to the public, through the select committee process, and this House would get to vote on the specific treaty, or not.

The Government has done it on one piece of legislation, and if it is confident that it has the numbers in this House, then it should be able to get it through. If it is confident enough to have gone out and signed a treaty or signed a deal, and it has the majority in this House, what is wrong with a little bit of transparency on behalf of the public to make sure that there is a benefit to the treaty or the deal and that those benefits, or some of the disadvantages, of a specific deal that we may have signed up to can have some scrutiny from the public?

I was not a member of Parliament at the time when the China free-trade agreement was signed and went through this House, but I understand that that is the process Phil Goff and the last Labour Government went through to make sure that there was some public scrutiny, and there is a good story to tell around the China free-trade agreement.

The Government has an opinion on the TPP. It brought that legislation to the House. Unfortunately, there was a change in international circumstances that means that the deal as it stood is now no longer able to be done, but it did bring some legislation to this House. What this piece of legislation that the New Zealand First member has proposed is saying is that if we have a similar deal, why not bring it through this House as a standard procedure?

I guess the members opposite need to ask why we would do it for the TPP but we are not willing to commit to it for any other future deal that might get done in the future. I am saying that not necessarily to a particular kind of Government—a National Government or a Labour-led Government. But if a Government either sees fit to commit us to some commitments around climate change or sees the economic benefit of a trade deal, why not let it be a standard procedure that this House gets to debate it and the merits and the disadvantages of it?

I think the Government needs to figure out where it stands. Does it need to bring the deals to this House and get public support for them, or will it answer questions around sweeping it under the table or doing a bit of a “sneaking it through quickly” deal, if we do sign up to these treaties or trade deals, and then pay the public price for that too? So I think this bill should go to a select committee to enable a public debate about whether or not, as a standard procedure, this is something that Parliament does to make sure that the deals that we sign up to as a Government are scrutinised by this Parliament and by the public of New Zealand. Thank you.

I rise also, as other members on this side of the House have done, to speak against the International Transparent Treaties Bill. I think—I know, in fact—that it has long been the case in New Zealand, since the 1800s, that the power to enter into or to withdraw from a treaty sits properly with the executive; that is, with Her Excellency the Governor-General, acting on advice from Ministers. So, in the time that New Zealand has been an independent Realm, and even as a dominion, in so far as we treated internationally at that point in time, agreements, arrangements, conventions, and covenants—“treaties”, if you will—have been, quite properly, and as is the practice of all other Westminster democracies akin to our own, concluded by the Crown, by Ministers advising the Governor-General, and these are then considered by this House in the treaty examination process, particularly in those areas that then need to see measures implemented under New Zealand law.

I did want to pick up on a couple of terminological issues with the bill that the member puts forward. It may surprise the member to learn that of the 1,600 agreements that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade keeps the texts of in its archive, the vast majority of them are, in fact, not called treaties; they are agreements and arrangements, which often pertain to trade, and conventions and covenants pertaining to multilateral issues such as disarmament or human rights. The word “treaty” in the New Zealand system is almost universally reserved for significant international agreements, particularly pertaining to defence.

So whilst the member talks a lot about secret trade deals—in fact, it is mentioned in the explanatory note, in the general policy statement of this bill—I think a very real risk of the system he proposes is to international agreements that we are party to that deal with defence. This is an incredibly important topic in this era of fundamentalist terrorism in some parts of the world, and with the need for the global community to act in a decisive and timely manner in addressing the risks and threats to our societies—those of us who live in the Western, liberal, democratic world—I would not want to see any defence arrangement that New Zealand enters into held hostage by a lengthy process when, in fact, the measures that would implement the process can be properly scrutinised by this House after it has been concluded, in a timely fashion, by the Ministers of the day, who, let us not forget, are democratically elected and are, universally, members of this House.

I also think there is an issue with the definition of “treaty” as supplied by the member in the interpretation section of his bill. I think he draws from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, but I would refer the member to chapter 29 of the very excellent A guide to Diplomatic Practice by Sir Ernest Satow. If he would like, I have the fifth edition. It is a little bit dated now—it is about 30 years out of date—but I would be happy to supply him with a copy, where a far superior definition, at a much higher level of generality, is given for what constitutes an international treaty. Part of the problem with the member’s definition is that it does exclude oral instruments, which are acknowledged as being a very real form of international agreement, and I would point the member to the legal status of the Eastern Greenland case from 1933 as a particularly interesting one. I think a superior definition, as Reuter proposes, is that a treaty is: “une manifestation de volontés concordantes imputable à deux ou plusieurs sujets de droit international et destinée à produire des effets de droit selon les règles de droit international”. So I think the member should have done a little bit more homework and not relied on definitions drawn from a quick google search, which is clearly what he has done in this case. That might have made for a better bill.

One last point—and I think Dr Reti rehearsed this argument very well in his contribution—in 2000 the same measure was considered by this House, and then the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which was dominated by Labour members, refuted this measure and, in fact, consigned it to the dust bin. That was, of course, a far more competent Labour administration than the party that sits across the House today. I would hope that some residual level of competence remains and that they will oppose this measure. Thank you.

I do so hate to disappoint the member who just resumed his seat, Paul Foster-Bell, but when Kennedy Graham referred to one member on the Government who was a constitutional expert, I do not think he was referring to that member.

I rise very happily to support the International Transparent Treaties Bill, and before I outline some of the reasons for Labour’s support, I just want to touch on some of the other contributions from members opposite. The first one I want to go to is a comment from Stuart Smith. I do not know whether it was a throwaway or an intended remark, but he stood up in this Chamber, in which we debate laws in a democratic system that we all treasure and value, and spoke about the needless complexity of having a House in which we can democratically debate our laws. He called what we are doing “needless complexity”. That is all that this bill does—it says that the members of this House should be afforded an opportunity to scrutinise an international treaty that might bind the people of New Zealand and future Governments of New Zealand. Stuart Smith said, on behalf of the National Government, that that democratic process in this House was a piece of needless complexity, and that probably tells us about all that we need to know.

Shane Reti chose to draft in Ron Mark for some extra support, which I think showed the paucity of his other arguments, but the major argument that he did put forward—which a number of the other National members plucked off their speaking notes—was that we already have a select committee process. Of course that is true, but, to some extent, is that not the point? If we already have a select committee process, then what is so hard, what is so additionally complex, about affording the members of this House the opportunity to properly scrutinise and vote upon a treaty that might bind us in the future? If the argument is that it is too hard—and we heard this from Mr Muller in his contribution at the beginning—to bring a treaty back to Parliament, where it might be picked apart, why is it so hard to do it in this House if we already have a select committee process? That, to me, was an entirely contradictory position from the members opposite.

The other thing that I found confusing tonight, particularly coming out of the Budget debate over the past couple of weeks, is that this Government’s members—I will give them credit—do not lack confidence. They are very happy to march into this Chamber, no matter how short-sighted or contradictory the position, puff up their chests, and confidently advance their position. I do genuinely give them some credit for that. And that is the fundamental point here. If they are so confident of their position, so confident of their own world view and intellectual framework, then why are they not willing, when they choose to sign this country up to a binding international treaty that they believe will be good for this country, that will have the effect of binding future Governments—why will they not come into this Chamber and argue it on those occasions, and win the debate? What would be so hard about that?

My colleague Kris Faafoi expanded on this point earlier on, and I thought this was probably the most important point of the debate. Most of the members of this House have a liberal and open world view. Most of the members of this House support free and fair trade. Most of the members of this House support New Zealand being engaged in multilateral institutions and instruments. But if members over there will not open up the debate and include New Zealanders, then they will lose the debate. It is so patently obvious to many of us in this House that that is what is happening around the world—when Governments and institutions close the debate and do not bring people with them, then the people whom we are elected to represent will lose confidence in our democratic processes, will lose confidence in our multilateral institutions, and will retreat into nativism. Most of us in this House do not want that, but if we do not open up the debate, if we do not give proper opportunities for democratic engagement, that is exactly what will happen.

My colleague Kris Faafoi spoke about how we can do this. Did the China free-trade agreement (FTA) fall over because of needless complexity because the last Labour Government brought it back to this House? No. It strengthened. It built political and civil society support. That FTA had agreement from, with acknowledgment to my friends immediately to the left, about 90 percent of this House when it came through. It had agreement from trade unions, it had broad agreement from civil society, and it has proven to be an enduring and important free-trade agreement that enjoys widespread support, precisely because we had a democratic process around it. A part of that was bringing that international treaty into this House. I am surprised and disappointed that this Government, which supports free trade and says it supports multilateral institutions, does not have the same courage that the last Labour Government had in respect of that treaty. Thank you.

I am not sure whether to be appalled or entertained; I am sort of vacillating between the two. The farcical attempts at reason and logic here tonight have been relatively astounding. Actually, there has been only eloquence from this side, particularly from my colleague Paul Foster-Bell. There is always room for more French—of course, it is the language of diplomacy—in this House. I will not attempt, though, any other language.

Look, the arguments put forward have been, again—I could do it in Latin, but the Hon Chris Finlayson is here and I would be told off very quickly. We just heard from the member who sat down, Michael Wood, about the nature of liberalism. He seems to have missed the fact that this bill is actually about closing the door to free trade. This is the whole point of it. It has come through very clearly and off the back of the whole Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation. It is a reactionary bill. It wants to close the doors. It is from a party that is very well known for its anti-trade, anti-globalisation—and then the last speaker had the audacity to talk about this as being somehow liberal when it is not. The other thing about being liberal is that it comes out of a tradition, and in particular, liberality comes out of a Westminster tradition, or has been well protected by it. This works within the Westminster tradition where the executive has the power to make these treaties.

💬 Tracey Martin: Power! Power!

Oh, yes, power! And now the feminist critique comes out that all power is bad, of course, until they get it and then they love it, but that is a whole other debate.

We have also had the great lecture on democracy, and the classic failing that often comes from the left that democracy is simply about representation. Now, that is a real—I do not know; it is not even a stage 1 understanding of what democracy is. The idea that everyone has to have their say at all times is not the whole point of democracy.

Even if you go right back in history, democracy is about representation in order to achieve a particular end. If all your end is is sitting around talking all day, which might be familiar to the caucuses on the other side of the Chamber, then that is not democracy at all. Democracy is about making things happen for the people. My colleagues on this side, who have been in business, who have been in negotiations, who understand what business is about, know that this democracy—this New Zealand democracy—is all about actually making sure that everyone is looked after, and we do that by trading. We do that by having our executive members, who have been voted for by the people in New Zealand, go and negotiate a treaty, then bring it back to this House to be ratified.

I would love the other side—unfortunately, they are not going to have the chance—to wonder, when we look analogously at the carers’ agreement that we have just signed: did they want the union or their mates to come back here and negotiate constantly with the House the terms they negotiated with the Crown? No, they did not. They negotiated that carers’ contract quietly, as you do. They talked about it. They brought it back here. The agreement was signed by the Crown. There was none of this discussion, and they are not calling for that in this situation here, and I just think it is fascinating that they do not.

This bill is, ultimately, as I said at the start, about restricting free trade. It is about needless complexity that is not required. I have spent years doing negotiations—not, granted, in the treaty or overseas area—and I can tell you that a person does not go reporting back every 5 minutes to everyone about what they are doing. I certainly did not. You are trusted to go and do the negotiation and bring it back. That is fundamental to any contracting process, let alone a treaty negotiation.

Again, this is a matter for the executive. It is a long-standing tradition. And, actually, and fundamentally important—and I think it has been missed most in the contributions here—the House has to adopt a treaty as part of its domestic law. That is the process that we go through. The Parliament can choose to block a treaty becoming part of our domestic law if it chooses.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: You signed it before you got here.

And now the member says: “Oh, you signed it before we got here.” You have missed the fundamental distinction: it is the right of the executive—and it is proper—to negotiate and sign that agreement, and it is right for this House, it is right and proper for the non-executive, the members of Parliament, to ratify that bill, to pass the law.

They are two separate processes, and it is very clear from the member’s last comments that they are conflating the two. And so, from that basis of ignorance, there is no way that I can support that bill, along with, really, as I said, the farcical understandings that have been going on around this. It is time-consuming and tiring.

I think the members opposite would have known—but it is clear; and I probably need to make it clear for them—that this bill was kept simple for their benefit. The profundity was missed by those members. I just want to note that I had no idea that the National Party’s definition of democracy was “needless complexity”. Hear, hear—brilliant! Despite knowing exactly what the Government members would say tonight, I am still frustrated, perplexed, and disappointed—disappointed by what turned out to be personal attacks on myself. I would have said that it was beneath those members; apparently, I was wrong.

As expected, the National backbenchers turned to their historic and ongoing spin that somehow New Zealand First is against trade. It was sad that they could not and would not refer beyond their tired spin and the tired rhetoric that somehow New Zealand First is anti-trade. The whole premise of this bill is about debating trade, or international treaties. It would have been nice to have gone to a select committee and said: “What is it that we should bring to the House that is of such significance that the people of New Zealand must be represented by those whom we call their representatives?”.

As Dr Reti ably noted, we have been here before in 2001-02. A bill of a very similar nature was defeated in its second reading. That was then, and this is now, and I say to the members opposite that so much has changed. What passes for a trade deal today would not have been recognised by members 10 or 15 years ago. I put it to this House that the same objections can no longer apply. Funnily enough, those were the exact objections 15 years later—the same objections used by the backbenchers tonight. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has shown—and it is a shining example—that the executive must be constrained in its power; that Parliament must play a more significant role in our international obligations and what we would sign up to.

This is a House of Representatives, and under MMP the diversity of its representation has become so much more reflective of the people we presume to represent. That must be recognised in this debate tonight. For the benefit of the members opposite, you can imagine—or not, I suppose, in your caucus—that New Zealand First has actually discussed this bill. We say that, in fewer than 10 years, trade treaties—or partnerships now, actually—have changed beyond recognition. They are no longer fundamentally bilateral trade agreements; they are investment agreements that exceed 6,000 pages in length. They are huge, they are complex, and they discuss so much more than trade liberalisation through the removal of tariffs and the movement of goods across borders. They go so far beyond that. This House absolutely deserves to be part of that conversation—in fact, more than that, this bill says this Parliament must be the ultimate arbiter.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, you don’t believe that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

They are so sure of themselves—oh, and here is a perfect example of arrogance here tonight. They are so sure of themselves, so confident, that they want to close off the debate. They want to shut out the public. This is what is wrong with the globalist movement today. This is what is wrong with the National Government. It wants to shut the discussion down. We want to remain open to the world, and we need to undertake profitable business through the form of exports. We want to see New Zealand businesses succeed, but we cannot sit back and watch international corporates take over New Zealand.

I just want to end by closing with former Minister Richard Prebble, because I am disappointed with the vote of the ACT Party tonight, which I admit I presume. Richard Prebble called it absurd that the executive could sign up to international treaties without parliamentary approval. And, in that, New Zealand First would agree with him. Thank you.